A row of single-use toilet rooms at The Hall CP in College Park. Image by the author.

This year, 2023, is flush with restroom advocacy in Greater Washington. The DC Council has a new bill to expand restroom access in city parks, while Maryland’s General Assembly is considering (again) a bill to expand gender-neutral restroom access in state facilities. In Montgomery County, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has communicated its concerns about the effect of gender-neutral bathrooms on Muslim students to the school board. A key commonality across these three efforts? Single-user restrooms.

People sometimes mean different things when they say single-user restrooms; these bills refer to a restroom with one toilet and one sink area, separated by full walls and a door, which is considered to be the “gold standard” for a bathroom. This design is becoming more common in new buildings and facilities in the area — for example, at the newly opened Silver Line Metro stations in Virginia.

Single-user restrooms are less widespread than they could be for three reasons: costs, codes, and crime. First, they tend to be more expensive than typical, shared, gender-separated restrooms (though this is not always the case). In addition, many jurisdictions’ plumbing codes— including those for Maryland and the District — require men’s and women’s rooms with toilets at certain ratios for certain facilities. Finally, current bathroom formats evolved in the 1960s and 1970s as a way to prevent drug use and public sex, and though that change did not affect behavior, the legacy lives on.

Current legislation and advocacy may change this situation. The District proposed bill would specifically mandate single-user restrooms. Maryland’s bill focuses on single-user restrooms would mandate that existing and new single-user restrooms in most public places be made gender-neutral. CAIR calls for more-single user restrooms in Montgomery County schools, and only such restrooms in future construction.

This advocacy has elicited sadly predictable transphobic and Islamophobic comments. However, some have brought up a valid criticism: Are these restrooms worth the higher cost? I will address the cost issue, but first: the gender, disability, and religious implications of a single-user design.

Why single-user restrooms are worth it

Single-use restrooms with additional features to facilitate ablution for Muslim observance and and adult-size changing tables in Minneapolis. Image by the author.

Single-user restrooms are a good idea, quite simply, because they are needed by many different people for a wide range of reasons.

First, between 10 and 20% of the general population need such restrooms because they experience paruresis, a condition in which urination becomes difficult or impossible when other people are around. (It is real: the sphincter muscles contract, which does not allow the bladder to expel urine.) A single-user restroom can be the difference between being able to evacuate, or not.

Single-user restrooms are also an elegant solution for gender inclusion. Many transgender and non-binary people face risk of assault in segregated bathrooms. As a result, many avoid shared restrooms, even gender-neutral ones, and “hold it in” for many hours — which, over time, can impact their health quite badly. Single-user restrooms offer safety and dignity.

Another key use for restrooms is to attend to menstruation, and many more people feel comfortable changing a tampon or a menstrual cup in a single-user restroom. In my own research, many women, transgender men, and non-binary people have told me about the difficulty of addressing menstruation in a multi-stall bathroom, especially when using something other than tampons.

Many people with disabilities need access to such restrooms as well. Some need support when they use the restroom, and most multi-stall restrooms – even those that are accessible – do not have enough space to go in with a support person. In addition, some people with disabilities need to inject medications or change colostomy bags or adult diapers — neither task is feasible in a multi-user restroom. The lack of suitable restrooms means that many people with disabilities end up planning their travels and days around where bathroom access is guaranteed. Other people with disabilities also benefit from single-user bathrooms — autistic people like myself are more likely to experience paruresis, for example.

Single-user restrooms are also important for many religious people. As CAIR notes, many people follow specific religious modesty strictures around what can be visible, and to whom. Single-user bathrooms offer a gender-neutral, safe space to address these concerns. In addition, many religions mandate the use of water after defecation, and the vast majority of American bathrooms are not well-designed to meet this need. A single-user restroom offers more room to efficiently – and cleanly! – follow this rule.

Overcoming the cost barrier

Single-use restrooms at Mixt food hall in Brentwood, Maryland. Image by the author.

The biggest barrier to single-user restrooms is the cost. On a cost-per-toilet basis, a single user-bathroom usually costs two to three times more to build than a multi-stall bathroom, which can serve more people at one time. However, there are cost-effective ways to design, plan, and build single-user restrooms.

One is careful attention to organization: rows of single user bathrooms, as I have seen in many newer buildings in Prince George’s County, allow for a more efficient and cheaper setup for plumbing and fixtures. Building materials can be adjusted too — using thinner walls between rows of single-user restrooms, as is common in many new buildings, reduces costs considerably.

In fact, some folks have noted that single-user restrooms often make for a more efficient, and cheaper, use of space in many venues. Harvey Molotch, a world-renowned bathroom expert, noted in 2016 that current standards are “extremely inefficient because there’s often extra spare space for one gender or another.”

Retrofitting older buildings is more challenging. Many buildings have men’s and women’s rooms separated by something else, and entail two separate plumbing systems. Many older buildings are still inaccessible and reconstruction, though absolutely necessary, is already expensive. In addition, ventilation systems would often need to be completely rebuilt. Each retrofit will probably need its own cost-efficacy strategy. For example, a facility might convert separated bathrooms that share a plumbing infrastructure before ones that do not.

Unfortunately, it is not always possible to design your way out of spiraling construction costs. The high costs we see in building and transportation construction extend to restrooms, and changing that reality requires a significant policy effort.

As for crime, that will require separate, holistic efforts too. As a society, we are yet to find a restroom design that fully prevents people from doing certain things. When there is a will, however dubious, there is often a way.

In the long-term, the strongest impetus for more single-user restrooms will be changes to building and plumbing codes, which direct restroom design and provision. Since 2018, the International Plumbing Code, which is the basis for many local codes, has recommended that single-user restrooms be made gender-neutral, and not used to count for minimum facilities for men or women. Nonetheless, additional advocacy and tailoring to local standards will be important in the coming years to ensure a greater flow of single-user restrooms.

Jonathan Paul Katz lives with his partner in Silver Spring and received a Master’s degree in planning from UMD. He works for the Department of Labor. He is interested in the intersection of disability access and planning. In his spare time, he also writes a food blog, Flavors of Diaspora. This work is separate from and does not reflect his employment.